Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ouch you really have been flying kites here and letting the claimant control things. it is worrying that the sheriff has tried several times to nail you about this (factious) payment,  but its also lucky and interesting to see he has not shut the door on your new issues . typically the situation you see yourself in, is one that we put the claimant in by our std defence (that you are reading now)    i think a bit of crawling is now in order( for want of another word) and it needs to be made 1000% clear to the sheriff ( even if by a little white lie) that it transpires there most probably never was any settlement made to HBOS by the ex   some vague explanation that he has confirmed he never did, and bring in the fact that he is a currently deployed by the UK military forces abroad we believe and communication has been to put it politely very difficult due to the nature of his deployment..it might also now be time to mention the mental issue ( with proof) , your daughter suffers from and how these obviously contributed to the situation and p'haps of being thus exploited by the EX whom if one were to be honest m'lud, is a bit of what someone would describe 'as a rouge'.   then your defence focus needs to switch to  (a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, that this claim is based on. (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand/Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment. © Provide a breakdown of the excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification. (d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. (e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.   particularly a.b.c. explaining in concise but brief detail why each if not produced , is fatal to any enforcement of an OD debt claim   have you yet included  The court will be aware that penalty charges and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.   in anything to the court to date.        
    • Re a possible s75 claim - is your Amex card a credit card?  I ask because it certainly used* to be the case that some American Express cards, although commonly described as credit cards, were actually charge cards (where you had to pay the whole of the outstanding balance at the end of the month) and were not credit cards - and therefore not eligible for s75 claims.   *  I suspect that these days all AmEx are credit cards, but you might want to check to be sure.  If it isn't a credit card you might want to consider what you use it for.
    • In reply to your earlier message, the payments were made regularly to the S/C and A/C that I provided.  The payment was always made to this account for the card using the PAN number, however the error payment was made without any reference to the same. Lloyds bank changed the reference number from the PAN of the card to 2686XXXX not sure who changed it to this if it was Lloyds or Lowell or when it was changed.  Then subsequently Lowell changed the A/C number again to their one that they quoted on the POC.    All I can ascertain is that the payment was made from Santander to the A/C above in error but after Lloyds had sold the Debt and Assigned it elsewhere. However, according to Santander the payment was made with no REF number sent with the payment.   I also received the order from the court yesterday which I have attached. There are several items that the court is asking to have for the hearing but haven’t had anything from the Claimant.   What is the best next course of action as the court is asking that we attempt to resolve this before the hearing?   Court Order.pdf
    • Car value apparently £2200. ( post #3 )   Car hire possibly £3000.   Wonder why the third party Insurers Admiral are refusing liability to pay !   Not sure ths is really about who is at fault for the accident, but is more to do with AX and their expensive courtesy car.   Pretty sure this claim would have been settled by Admiral, had the Sister dealt with this claim not using AX.   Think that a complaint to AX should be made, but possibly after sending them an SAR to request all information including any phone call recording where any courtesy car was discussed.    
    • Hi again, just a quick update.   The collection has been arranged for tomorrow, 6th March, the refund will apparently be processed after collection is done and should be completed within 5 working days.   Will let you know when it's completed...    
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies
  • Recommended Topics

park motor finance - illegal repo - now mortimer chasing me


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1478 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

hi please can anybody see if this applys to me

 

 

i had a car loan from park motor finance

paid my fiance for 3 years of a 48 months contract

 

 

got made redundant

i got the default notice after 2 payments were missed

i got a letter saying that they were taking me to court if i didn't repay what i owed

 

 

then got another letter a week later saying if i don`t contact them it was going to court to take repression of the car,

 

 

i rang park that told me i ever give it up or go to court as i could not repay at that time

 

 

i let them take it

 

 

fast forward 5 years Mortimer Clark are now chasing me.

 

Retaking of protected hire-purchase etc. goods.

 

(1)At any time when—

 

(a)the debtor is in breach of a regulated hire-purchase or a regulated conditional sale agreement relating to goods, and

 

(b)the debtor has paid to the creditor one-third or more of the total price of the goods, and

 

©the property in the goods remains in the creditor,

 

the creditor is not entitled to recover possession of the goods from the debtor except on an order of the court.

 

(2)Where under a hire-purchase or conditional sale agreement the creditor is required to carry out any installation and the agreement specifies, as part of the total price, the amount to be paid in respect of the installation (the “installation charge ”) the reference in subsection (1)(b) to one-third of the total price shall be construed as a reference to the aggregate of the installation charge and one-third of the remainder of the total price.

 

(3)In a case where—

 

(a)subsection (1)(a) is satisfied, but not subsection (1)(b), and

 

(b)subsection (1)(b) was satisfied on a previous occasion in relation to an earlier agreement, being a regulated hire-purchase or regulated conditional sale agreement, between the same parties, and relating to any of the goods comprised in the later agreement (whether or not other goods were also included),

 

subsection (1) shall apply to the later agreement with the omission of paragraph (b).

(4)If the later agreement is a modifying agreement, subsection (3) shall apply with the substitution, for the second reference to the later agreement, of a reference to the modifying agreement.

 

(5)Subsection (1) shall not apply, or shall cease to apply, to an agreement if the debtor has terminated, or terminates, the agreement.

 

(6)Where subsection (1) applies to an agreement at the death of the debtor, it shall continue to apply (in relation to the possessor of the goods) until the grant of probate or administration, or (in Scotland) confirmation (on which the personal representative would fall to be treated as the debtor).

 

(7)Goods falling within this section are in this Act referred to as “protected goods ”.

 

 

thanks donald

Link to post
Share on other sites

unlawful repo

go get all you moneyback

 

 

they needed a court order

they didn't get one.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank that what i thought,but how do i put off Mortimer just got the first letter to contact them on the outstanding balance and have 14 day to reply, have phoned them told them i was going to defend there claim

Link to post
Share on other sites

what claim?

 

 

you should never ever phone a DCA or their fake/tame solicitors

they ARE NOT BAILIFFS

and have NO SUCH LEGAL POWERS

as for any time limits

they can be ignored.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...